Skip to comments.
MAKS: Can Russia’s ‘Caspian Sea Monster’ rise again?
Flightglobal.com ^
| August 28, 2015
Posted on 08/28/2015 6:23:09 AM PDT by sukhoi-30mki
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-25 last
To: sukhoi-30mki
What this thread is lacking is a video - imagine the sound that thing made with 10 screaming jet engines.
In the middle of the vid at about the 1:20 mark you can see they even get a bit of lift-off going, something like maybe 20-30 feet up from the water.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R3mvLR9qb20
Extreme water skiing anyone?
21
posted on
08/28/2015 9:45:04 AM PDT
by
lapsus calami
(What's that stink? Code Pink ! ! And their buddy Murtha, too!)
To: RayChuang88
Soviet jet engines, turbines, and turbofans were notorious fuel guzzlers. The best case for the aircraft was as a fast troop transport and as a way to launch salvoes of guided missiles at US and NATO naval vessels when they were clustered in a carrier task force. I think that what eventually killed the project was that in addition to cost and limited value, the Soviets no doubt realized that the look down, shoot down radars being deployed by the US in the late 1980s would deprive the LUN of the element of surprise and make it exceptionally vulnerable.
To: Rockingham
Actually, if they can design it around a ducted fan engine using a turboprop, you could make it work without the ridiculous fuel consumption and noise (which was the downside of the Soviet ekranoplan designs). Such a vehicle--"flying" maybe 150-175 passengers--would be perfect for trips between Busan in South Korea and Fukuoka in Japan (imagine travel in around one hour, compared to the circa 3.5 to 4 hour trip by hydrofoil now).
23
posted on
08/28/2015 10:19:22 AM PDT
by
RayChuang88
(FairTax: America's economic cure)
To: RayChuang88
It is easy enough to identify a few such routes in the world, but would they provide enough of a market to justify the design and production of a new kind of aircraft? Perhaps, but as the immense loss that Airbus must absorb on the development of the A-380 shows, an aircraft that is a technological marvel and finds a commercial market may still be a financial disaster that burdens its maker.
To: tanknetter
I guess they could have classified it as a seaplane. USCG jurisdiction when on the water, and FAA jurisdiction when flying.
25
posted on
08/28/2015 7:22:12 PM PDT
by
zot
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-25 last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson